Jump to content

telephoto on a budget


mendonphoto

Recommended Posts

I would like suggestions for the how to get the best quality 200 to

300 mm lens for $400 or less. I am more interested in image quality

than speed, but speed (of course) would still be nice.

I currently have a Canon 75-300mm consumer zoom ($175.00). I have not

been overly please with image quality - even with just 4x6" prints.

Obviously, professionaly zooms and even primes are way out of my

price range. Even the cheapest pro-sumer zoom I could find (from

Sigma) is over $600.00. And, I can't find any pro-sumer primes in

that range (canon makes a 135mm). Here are the options I have

considered so far:

 

1. I have Canon's 85mm f-1.8 prime. I could also purchase the 135mm

prime by Canon and then a 1.4 or 2.0 extender. This could get me a

respectable set of focal lengths from 85 to 270mm.

 

2. Get the 135mm lens and use it by itself. Forget the teleconverter

and just crop the images in post-processing.

 

3. Keep my 75-300mm lens.

 

4. Sell the 75-300mm lens and live without telephoto capabilities

until I can afford to shell out $500 - $1000.

 

One more thing to consider is that I would like, in the next year or

two, to buy a digital camera body to use with my set of lenses. I may

be able to live with a slightly shorter lens for now, knowing that

the digital camera will effectively increase the length by 1.6. But,

I would not expect to be able to crop the digital image like I can an

image from film.

 

Suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not really going to answer your question so I offer it partly with tongue in cheek.

 

Up to last year I used a manual Pentax system but changed over to my wife's EOS system mainly to eliminate duplication. But when I did it I knew that I would not be able to afford long EF tele's. So, I kept my old beat-up 400mm Takumar that I bought for about $100, and bought a $25 Chinon screw-mount body to go with it. That arrangements works for me because I use it rarely so its deficiencies don't affect me much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along the same lines as Robert, in recent months I've purchased a Canon A-1 and Canon FD 300mm f/4.0, whose prices totalled about $300. (In contrast to his case, I wasn't supplementing an AF system. Canon FD is my only SLR system.) It's something to think about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to agree with everyone else. Pick up an older manual focus body and a tele to fit it.

 

There isn't a law that says you have to only by autofocus lenses and the new whiz bang bodies that match them.

 

I use a kmount body for my exotic glass. Picked up at an auction site for less than 30 bucks. My exotic lenses work well with it. An 8mm fisheye and 16mm wide angle.

I've also got a cheap old m42 mount slr that i use with a 200mm lens.

 

If your not trapped in the eos box there are literally hundreds permutations of older lenses and bodies that will fit your needs.

 

I would look for a longer lens first. Maybe in an MD or FD mount. Then match it up with a manual focus body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I hadn't considered an older manual focus lens and an old body just for that lens. I might have to go that way.

 

If I still decide to get something just for my EOS, what would give me the best quality for my budget? I know, the best thing to do would be go to a camera store and try them out. But, that's hard for me since I live in No-where's-ville, UT. The only camera shop here is an Inkley's (Ritz family) and their selection of lenses is VERY limited. Renting via mail-order would pretty much consume my purchase budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually primes might be your best bet. If you were shooting Nikon, I would have recommended you look at the Nikkor 180mm 2.8 EDIF. Because 80-200mm 2.8 zooms have largely usurped their role this lens is available relative cheap ($650 New, about $400 used- I got mine off of ebay for $300). The Canon equivalent of this lens would be the Canon 200mm 2.8 L II USM which new cost about the same as the Nikkor- about $630 at BHphoto. If you can find a used one, you could probably get down to the $400 price range you were interest in- although I have to admit with a very cursory google search and ebay search, I didn't see any avaible. The Nikkors on the other hand are very available- you might consider picking up a used Nikon af body to be able to use one.

 

Another cool thing about this focal length is a 200mm primes becomes the equivalent of a 300mm 2.8 prime (in terms of crop factor) when mounted on a digital camera- something to think about for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=CE&cid=08&sid=newused&crid=6840242

<p>

Speed is not the first concern? Check the 300 f/4 tokina atx lenses. They are not that bad, and well within your budget(even the excellent condition ones). With some luck, you could also get the sigma 180/3.5 macro ex (a great but heavy thing) for about 400, but at this moment, keh does not have it; maybe you can check some other used stuff dealers. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

As G. Wiley suggested, I'd, too, suggest going with a prime. A couple of months ago I purchased a Canon EF 200/f2.8 in undetectable-from-new condition for $430. The lens is as at least as sharp as any ED Nikkor I've used in the past (probably sharper). I've been using it with a 1.4 extender a lot and still get tack sharp results. The lens has ring USM focus (it's very fast) and is easy to carry and fairly light as well. For the money, it is a steal in my opinion. I got mine from KEH camera brokers and their service was outstanding.

 

Good luck with your choices.....Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<html>

 

<head>

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1">

<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive 6">

<title>link</title>

</head>

 

<body bgcolor="#ffffff">

<p>Hi there</p>

<p>This post might be of help with regard to the world of manual focus Minolta teles maybe:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Bl6">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Bl6</a></p>

</body>

 

</html>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<html>

 

<head>

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1">

<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive 6">

<title>Minolta MC 300mm Rokkor HF f/4.5</title>

</head>

 

<body bgcolor="#ffffff">

<p>Minolta MC 300mm Rokkor HF f/4.5 lens on a monopod</p>

<p>Fuji Provia 400F exposed @ ISO 1600 - push processed 2.1/3 stops (expensive film!)</p>

<p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/dragon-boaters.jpg" alt="" border="0"></p>

</body>

 

</html>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree with A. Taner the MC 300mm Rokkor is fine, I had mine for for around 120� with a MF Minolta body you should make the trick for less than 400$. I think you also can get cheaper with a Pentacon 300mm and a srew mount body.

 

I should also add that even if I find that autofocus is mostly useless manual focusing a 300mm is can be a real pain in the ass....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you have been using the zoom at 300mm (or close to it), and I'll agree, most zooms are not too good at the "long end", but I'm wondering if you might be confusing blur from camera movement with bad lens quality. Handholding a camera with a telephoto lens means you need to use fast shutter speeds... this won't change just because you get a better lens. You should also consider using a tripod.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more specific answers: your current zoom isn't that bad if you avoid using it towards the long end (300mm)... just pretend it only goes to 200mm. I'm confused by your question... you ask about 200-300mm but then mention 85mm and 135mm lenses. I wouldn't bother using a teleconverter because a good one is expensive, and also there a better options for the focal lengths you mention (prime lenses especially) have you really thought about what focal length you need? Getting an 85mm doesn't make much snse because your zoom is probabaly not that bad at 85mm, unless you have a specific reason like doing portraits. Same goes for 135mm. For longer focal lengths (like 300mm or more) a good lens will cost much more (unless you get a used lens) If you do decide to get a prime in the 85-135mm range, then sell your zoom and consider adding a prime 50mm, and saving up for a good telephoto.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...